Discuss and talk about any general topic.
OK...well, my intention isn't to make enemies on this board, but rather, to point out a few things that are a big "turn-off" to me when reading them on this website.
Namely, it's the consistent scapegoating of individualism -- and especially feminism -- that repulses me, as I consider myself a strong subscriber to those philosophies.
What many don't seem to realize is that there are various types of individualism and feminism (some good and some bad). But from what I've seen here, most posters seem quite ignorant of this obvious fact.
Let me start out with individualism: it is not the same as social isolation. The former is a philosophy, while the latter is a lifestyle. And there are at least two genres of individualism: "enlightened" and "stupid" (which also have been termed "enlightened selfishness" and "stupid selfishness").
Enlightened individualism can largely be summed up in three steps:
Step 1. Clarifying one's values (especially the intangibles)
Step 2. Considering the consequences of one's actions in the short run and long run
Step 3. Doing what's best for oneself after thinking long and hard about all of that
Stupid selfishness, on the other hand, is the practice of skipping steps 1 & 2, and pursuing number 3 without "thinking about all of that."
Anyway, as my own example to step #1 above, here is a partial list of some of my top values (in descending order):
1. My physical and mental health
2. My personal sense of authenticity (i.e., not being a fake)
3. My sense of inspiration/joy in life
4. My sense of longevity/sustainability in life
5. My future girlfriend/wife
6. My family
7. My music collection
8. My job/career
9. My money/gold bullion/investments
10. My other material possessions
I could go on and on, but the point is that the "good" type of individualism can serve as a priceless compass for daily personal decision-making. Many decades ago in the U.S., this was the norm among a large percentage of the population (and particularly of the cultural liberals of the time). Most were not socially-isolated, not cliquish, and interacted genuinely and freely with others without the fake politeness that's so widespread here today.
Likewise, today I encounter both "individualists" and "altruists" alike who are anti-social and reclusive, so how can individualism be a root of the problem?
Moving on to the subject of feminism now....
Many on here seem to grossly overgeneralize it (i.e., lumping it all into one single category), and seem to unilaterally bash it undistinguishingly. Never mind the plethora of genres of feminism that are present -- some good, and some bad. Personally, I like to filter them into two categories: classic and modern (with the former being the good kind, and the latter being bad).
Classic feminism (which includes my favorite: Individualist Feminism) is based upon the notion that a person should live his/her life in accordance with his own individual nature, and not necessarily according to some dogmatically-prescribed "gender role." This applies to all areas of life, ranging from career choices to dating behavior to tastes in music & movies. Classic feminism also holds that men & women possess the same inalienable rights, and should be equal under the law.
Modern feminism, on the other hand, is quite different. It surmises that an oppressive patriarchal social structure exists today (in developed countries) with the intention of keeping women "in their place," which must be aggressively rebelled against. It contends that most men wish to "exploit" women in various ways, and that women must take "precautions" galore -- such as by not appearing "too feminine," and by not carrying themselves in a very feminine way -- regardless of their individual natures. It also advocates that men and women should be absolutely equal economically, which should be imposed by the force of government, if necessary.
Most of the prominent early-American feminists (such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, etc.) were classic feminists. None of them fostered any hatred toward men, none were anti-feminine, nor did they advocate the forcible redistribution of wealth. In fact, it wasn't until the 1960s until modern feminism began to take root. Only then did the anti-male paranoia, the victimology, and the female-entitlement mentality begin to spread.
I'm proud to be a classic feminist. (I even wrote an article about it in college when I was a regular opinion columnist of the campus newspaper. You can read the op-ed by clicking here.) I'm also a fan of contemporary authors Wendy McElroy, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Camille Paglia, who are classic feminists that criticize the direction that popular feminism has taken during the last several decades. Do a web search of these authors, or check out the site http://ifeminists.net for good examples of realistic, level-headed feminism.
I'd like to close out this message with a challenging question for all of the feminist-bashers. Why is it that in Oklahoma City where I live -- in the culturally-conservative "Bible Belt" of the U.S.A. -- that most women are extremely cliquish, paranoid toward men, full of entitlement mentality, and unfemininely-dressed? Why, ironically, do very few of them consider themselves feminists? Is feminism really the root of the problem here? Or instead, could it be a cultural problem with television, movies, the news media, and the government?
Those are good points and very valid. However, I don't think anyone here disagrees with them. The kind of feminism we are bashing here is the kind that bashes men, hates men, and teaches that all men are creeps.
Have you read any articles about men in Vogue or Cosmopolitan? They are very feminist and treat men like objects that you measure up to perfection against. Very repulsive articles, and very shallow and unwise as well.
Individualism is a factor in social isolation. Regardless of the terms, it's too easy to be isolated in most of America and Canada too. When you go out alone, you stay alone. The trick in North America is getting into the right cliques early on in life, otherwise you are screwed. But even if you are in a large clique, your dating scene is usually LIMITED TO WITHIN that clique.
To do otherwise is to to break the boundaries that people are comfortable with.
And worse of all, if there are no desirable females in your clique, or no females at all, then YOU ARE SCREWED.
And that's my big beef with life in the states.
What you describe are merely differences in semantics I think. The concepts you mention are not in dispute.
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.
Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
I think most of us just enjoy having a forum where men can still be men and express their feelings honestly without worrying about the usual P.C. backlash and control mechanisms.
I get what you're saying in general. There are many different formulations of philosophies, even if they all carry the same name. So there are very different kinds of feminism just like there are very different types of socialism (although both words stir up people's feelings pretty quickly).
I think most of us here resent the kind of feminism that constantly insults men and ignores men's feelings. I can understand women wanting equal rights, but over the last few decades feminism--at least the kind that is most frequently in the media--has become a monster that has gone far beyond equality and has become every bit as fanatical as a cult.
It's natural for people to seek out opportunity, and on this board we are doing exactly that. You could call it the "globalization of dating" perhaps. Since the current culture of America is not very favorable to many men, it's natural for us to seek out a culture that is more advantageous to us overseas.
If you want to continue to help women gain more and more advantages, be my guest; but be careful that these same women don't turn on you or ignore all you have done for them after they attain the power they seek.
Back in college I wore a couple of buttons... one said "Campus crusade for Cthulhu -- It found me", and another said "Male feminists just wanna get laid".
http://www.myconfinedspace.com/2007/10/ ... cosplayer/
Seriously, I think a lot of guys should be thankful that feminism and the sexual revolution has made premarital sex socially acceptable. In my grandparent's generation, you had to marry before you have sex with a proper girl. Today sleeping with your GF is not only socially acceptable, it's an expected norm.
That was very well said. I am all about respecting both, and not blaming men for every little problem women have. As Suze Orman said "Our money problems are not the fault of men. It's because we sell ourselves short and refuse to save and empower ourselves to be good with our money". Basically, as a woman, I can't blame a man for any issues I have-even with being an unmarried mother. The best I can do is simply to make myself into the best person I can be, and treat both men and women with respect and basic human kindess.
For the life of me, I can not figure out why there must be a connotation to logic, perspective, or philosophy.
Same thing with that wendy mcelroy...thing. It describes itself as a "libertarian feminist". Why libertarian feminist? Isn't libertarian a sufficient description?
The moment anyone tries to separate a universal concept (be it freedom, liberty, education, politics, etc) into a particular socio-economic niche, they automatically define themselves as myopic.
Put in simple terms, my cultural heritage is Italian and Scottish. Announcing myself as a Italian-Scottish-American does nothing but make me look like a fool.
Reason 1: In liberal arts departments in academia, they think papers sound more impressive if their titles contain many trendy adjectives ("A Pre-Freudian Interpretation of Post-Industrial Midget Migrations" or "The Erotic Ontology and Neo-Kantian Metaphysics of Surrealist Swedish Cinema")
In contrast, scientists only use adjectives that are necessary. For example, there's a big difference between a gravitational field and an electrical field.
Reason 2: The feminists try to piggyback on pre-existing and popular political movements to try to bring more legitimacy to their feminist philosophy.
"Hey, you're a libertarian?"
"No kidding. Well, I'm a libertarian feminist, therefore you should help support my feminist philosophy" (Feminists infiltrate other political movements to troll for supporters).
I've often felt that the only feminists who are not hypocrites are the ones who are lesbians.
I lost the quote, but one of the famous (infamous?) feminazis proclaimed that all true feminists are lesbians.
I agree that feminists tend to glom onto established movements. Like you said, they should just stick to liberal arts courses. I suggest The History of Early Hungarian Cabinet Making.
I've heard about the free mixing of people of different ethnicites in South American countries before. I once found a funny website that listed several characteristics of native Brazilians. One of them was "You think you're white until you come to America." I wonder what historical reasons led to races mixing more harmoniously in South America and led the US to remain mostly segregated (just look at our big cities: black neighborhoods, white neighborhoods, Chinese neighborhoods, Russian neighborhoods, latino neighborhoods, Jewish neighborhoods, etc.).
excuse me? Unless I said something mean to you, you have no right to be mean to me. Thanks. Stay out of my business.
and it is all singularly my fault? Intresting. No, I was not responsible about birth control at that time. I was extremly young, and I also made a mistake. But I am prolife, so I decided to have my child. She is well taken care of, and I would not change anything about being a mother. I feel being a mother has helped me to mature and grow up more. I see other girls my age whoring themselves out at the club every weekend, and getting abortions. Had I not had a daughter, I would be just like them. As far as me being undesirable because I am a mother, I am happy for that. I have less worries about having to impress men who are overly finicky anyways, and would only use me for a bloody one night stand. So I thank God everyday for having the privilege to be a mother.
I think I would have to defend Wendy's here.
Libertarian Feminist is way different than normal feminists.
Libertarian feminists support porn. After all it's women's body's women's right.
Normal feminists hate porn.
Well, does porn hurt women? That is actually a vague question. The answer is, which one? Obviously high quality specimens proudly showing off her assets will set a new industry standard the rest must follow. So porn do hurt women, namely the ugly.
What about the pretty? Pretty women will have a choice. Becoming a porn star is one of the most highly paid job in the world. Well, pretty women already have lots of choice but more choices will always good.
So, libertarian are always on the side of the competitive. Libertarian Feminists, support right for porn. Most people hate competition. So most people hate porn.
There is nothing wrong with being a mother. But why get knocked up by poor males that don't support the kids?
In US child support is proportional to a man's wealth. If we can change that to be something proportional to the need of the child then there will be enough rich males for evey women that want them.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests